Schury be careful if you admit Italy to your alliance because all Vichy territories will unfreeze until the fall of France, and that lets the allied player use the mediterranean french fleet and make mincemeat the italian one.

Most interesting observation, a strategy I certainly never thought of.

This is subtle. It really is not obvious to me that it is a big win for the Axis. I'm not entirely opposed to allowing it to occur, I was after more variability in the starting game.

1. Axis attacks 2 neutrals early WR increases by 2-4 points, guaranteeing the USSR the ability to attain FM=2 at least one turn early. (this is why I never attack Denmark before Vichy, and one reason I would be unlikely to have thought of this strategy, and why I never found it during testing).

2. Italy joins early (This could happen anyway, by random event. So if this is unbalancing, please help me fix it.) South France unfreezes, the French fleet can delay the Italians in the Med for a turn or two (until surrender). If S France is captured, then France surrenders but Vichy is not formed, i.e. French North Africa will remain WA controlled.

Some ideas to play with to possibly improve things: A. decrease Yugoslavia's political volatility. It is now 7 in GG (it is 6 in TW). I increased it from 6 to 7 at some point in my Balkans adjustments, but forgot to put it back when I was done (it is no longer necessary to achieve the goals I had, given the current political events). This could be reduced back to 6, or even 5, to make the strategy less certain.

B. Increase the French forces in Southern France. This will make the unfreezing a little less difficult to the WA (although already it actually seems more difficult to the Germans than the other way around).

C. Change the Vichy surrender rules, so France surrenders but N Africa does not become Vichy if France was unfrozen (right now Vichy is not formed if S France is captured, this idea is extending that to be whenever Italy is in the war prior to French surrender).

A drawback in idea (A) is that the German player can play and replay the first turn until he gets what he wants. Ideally the game would start with the WA player, who would do nothing except set his password, then send the game to the German player. This would prevent the first turn cheats.

Any other ideas (that preserve variability of the first turns while also preserving balance)?

Actually, this is an example of a rule the details of which I must have forgotten.

I thought you had to attack and capture a neutral to get neutrals to move towards you, I see you only have to attack.

The situation is not actually so different from Total War, is it? Now that I've been reminded of the real rule, it seems to put lots of things out of whack (it makes it much easier to get friends than I thought it was).

Issue one: Although, I have not personally encountered a situation where it seems to have been abused, I like the idea of having WA initiate PBEM games. It takes the issue of manipulation out of the picture entirely.

Issue two: I am on the fence as to whether Schury's opener would constitute a major advantage (but it is interesting). Perhaps he can elaborate on what he thinks the benefits are. (I could simply be missing the implications) Are these in the context of his famed early German/Japanese attack on Russia?

In terms of specifics of the scenario, I am curious of how Rumania would subsequently enter the game. I don't recall the rules explicitly, but I presume that some conflict with Russia (if it had not already occurred) would push Romania into the German camp. Invading Greece would get Bulgaria, generally speaking, as well. Or, in this instance would Romania likely remain inactive until a German DOW on Russia? (If this is the case, I am not persuaded that much advantage exists at all). But these are simply luck of the draw, variability issues.

If Italy joins, does S France unfreeze automatically? I can't recall. If this is the case, the French fleet could attack any Italian fleet venturing forth. Of course, with the strategy, the Italians would stick to port until France were knocked out of the game. Perhaps -- to reflect that the fleet would have been on active duty at sea -- there could be a percentage of S France's fleet that joins WA in the event of an early Italian entry. Too, to reflect Italian ambitions in S France, Vichy would not be declared, if Italy joins the war early. Just some ideas.

I look forward to more comments, especially an explanation of how this specifically might constitute a 'super strategy' (although on that topic I am curious whether others have been successful in winning vs. an early German/Japan squeeze on Russia).

ORIGINAL: Lucky1 Issue two: I am on the fence as to whether Schury's opener would constitute a major advantage (but it is interesting). Perhaps he can elaborate on what he thinks the benefits are. (I could simply be missing the implications) Are these in the context of his famed early German/Japanese attack on Russia?

Schury can comment on his perspective, but my perspective of the openner discussed in this thread is that it is advantageous against Britain (because the Med is open for operations sooner) and disadvantageous against Russia (because Russian production bumps sooner).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1 In terms of specifics of the scenario, I am curious of how Rumania would subsequently enter the game.

Total War: this openner is still possible. Rumania will be stuck as a neutral if I am not mistaken.

Global Glory: Rumania can still become German controlled via the "Rumania joins Axis" event, which also gives 2 War Readiness points to Russia (another penalty against a Russian focused Axis strategy). The "Rumania ... occupation by Russia" event is also still possible until France surrenders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1

If Italy joins, does S France unfreeze automatically?

Yes. This is true regardless of scenario (Global Glory makes it more likely to occur, however).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1 I look forward to more comments, especially an explanation of how this specifically might constitute a 'super strategy' (although on that topic I am curious whether others have been successful in winning vs. an early German/Japan squeeze on Russia).

I'm also curious. If that strategy is too strong it may need balancing. Personally, I haven't tried it much (I always fear the eventual USA response, but perhaps I am always too focused on the long term).

Thanks for wonderinghead's resourceful thoughts. I just thought this opening is super interesting. And wondering whether it's a big advantage. However, If you refer to XIANING's an early German/Japan squeeze on Russia, to tell you the trut, I forced him to surrender in 1941 as the allies, against his early German/Japan squeeze on Russia. It just need some practice. You may find some clues in early AAR here

I looked at some early AARs, but frankly, the game has changed a lot since these were played (e.g., you vs. Jan). Without knowing the context of your victory over Xianing, I suspect that there was probably a significant mis-step (I have been known to make those myself).... Anyhow, this is not overly germane to your original post. I suppose that I only brought it up because allows Germany to use Italian production earlier in the game, facilitating an early squeeze gambit. Otherwise, I am not clear on whether this would be a game-imbalancing strat. From your most recent post, I see that you are not sure either (at least at this point). I agree that it is an interesting situation and I suppose the jury will be out until some people actually play against it. Perhaps you and your opponent could post an AAR....

I get the impression that this is not such a super strategy, since not much more has been said.

For GG, I think I will make Greece more likely to go WA if Yugoslavia is WA controlled. That should only occur if the Germans try this move (since Yugo cannot actually be *captured* in the first turn), and it would provide the WA with a convenient foothold to either retreat Yugo forces or to reinforce them.

I see schury has essentially posted this again in a new thread. But I think the old discussion is still on point. One observation is that in total war there is only a 36% chance of Yugoslavia leaning Allied if Denmark is attacked and 81% chance of Italy joining if Yugoslavia is attacked - for a total odds of 29% that what schury describes will occur. And I have to say that it is big trouble for the Axis if Italy does not join after Yugoslavia is attacked - you have given the WA a base in Yugoslavia to take out Rumania (if only temporarily) - which is a pretty big blow to the Axis. Further, even if Italy joins you are (again temporarily) giving Yugoslavia to the Allies and will probably lose Albania. You are giving the Allies extra French forces about equivalent to what the Italians have. You are increasing Russian WR a good bit too - and Russia will get its 2x modifier fairly quickly. And I agree with most of the other points by WH that there are some advantages to the Allies from this type of move. In other words, I don't think it is particularly unbalanced. On the other hand, I wonder if France should surrender at all if South France is taken. This would be an easy and realistic change - although it might also make it more tempting for the Allies to attack Italy. Or, as WH suggests, you could add another frozen unit or two in South France.

The reason i open a new post is that I find it really powerful in Total war than in GG4.0.And ppl didn't tend to believe this is powerful, but just had no one dare to fight me to prove that i was wrong? what I am trying to say is this strategy is so powerful and i pointed out to get some support that the senario should get some modification. But apparently, without a demostration, no one ever taken serious. Just like what I pointed out long ago in the first version that game was imbalanced cause Axis was so weak, most of the ppl laughed at me. However after some shows, new patch at least improved Japan. as you say 'you have given the WA a base in Yugoslavia to take out Rumania (if only temporarily) - which is a pretty big blow to the Axis. Further, even if Italy joins you are (again temporarily) giving Yugoslavia to the Allies and will probably lose Albania. You are giving the Allies extra French forces about equivalent to what the Italians have. You are increasing Russian WR a good bit too - and Russia will get its 2x modifier fairly quickly. And I agree with most of the other points by WH that there are some advantages to the Allies from this type of move. '

Since you forwarn, I respectful player, think there's so many disadvantages, so what about fighting me and we can write a great AAR. I know you are the best left still playing this game. So that'll be a good demostration

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 On the other hand, I wonder if France should surrender at all if South France is taken. This would be an easy and realistic change - although it might also make it more tempting for the Allies to attack Italy.

If France does not surrender if S France is taken then it leads to very unnatural play. Italy can be at war with France while France leaves its SEastern frontier completely unguarded.

My question to schury is *why* is this so powerful. Is it only because of the vulnerability of S France? Or is there more to it?

If S France is the main problem, then I would just add some units to S France.

It is worth noting that the WA player would have to be very careful. He can't attack Albania before Italy is accepted into the Axis fold, because while Italy is still Neutral (even if promising to join the Axis) there are heavy penalties for the WA attacking anything Italian.

I still think that starting the game with the WA turn so that the German cannot replay his openner would eliminate this, because it would be a highly risky move which could easily fail.

As I always said, the game should be balanced. I don't trust a game starting with allies, that causes a big favor to the allies. What I am wondering is that why you guys never point this out until I posted it? south france should definitely be strenthened. And of course there are more.So if one consider" I get the impression that this is not such a super strategy, since not much more has been said", just fight me and seek yourself, cause I can not presume what you would reply to my moves. You will not like my assumption of how awkward you would be while facing it. forwarn plz don't emphasis on the drawbacks of this stretegy, because those drawbacks are nothing comparing to the gains I have . You are just avoid noticing them, IMHO.

ORIGINAL: schury I don't trust a game starting with allies, that causes a big favor to the allies.

Read my first post on this thread. What I said was WA starts, but does nothing except enter a password. All it does is lock in the beginning of the game, so that the German cannot replay the first turn without incrementing the load counter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: schury forwarn plz don't emphasis on the drawbacks of this stretegy, because those drawbacks are nothing comparing to the gains I have . You are just avoid noticing them, IMHO.

The problem is that some drawbacks have been clearly enumerated, and one possible benefit has been given (France split into 3 attackable regions). And this benefit was not even pointed out by you explicitly.

This same thing can happen by political event in GG, and what I've heard from people who experienced it is that it actually puts the Germans a bit off balance because they have to worry about Italy. But maybe they just worry too much :).

It would help the discussion if you would be more explicit about *why* and *how* this is a benefit to the Axis. What happens after you've made Yugoslavia WA and Italy German (if you're not very unlucky) that is so favorable to Germany? Why don't you post the situation a few turns down the road?

Without some specifics it is easy for us to dismiss this. It doesn't mean it isn't a valid point, just that the arguments haven't been made. This lack of concrete points, and your own statement "I just thought this opening is super interesting. And wondering whether it's a big advantage", is why I made my post of Oct 25. Note that we don't always have time or inclination to play a game to prove or disprove every point made in the forums.

In Total War, I think this is a catastrophe for the Germans. Rumania would be stuck as a Neutral if I am not mistaken (am I mistaken? how would you turn Rumania German?).

In Global Glory, it is an interesting thing. I am still not sure if it is good or bad for the Germans. It seems like the good and the bad are nearly balanced.

game should be played not talked. I believe a great AAR could tell everything. Cause the situation is dynamic, sometimes drawbacks can be turned into advantages. Who knows what's gonna happen after your move? if you think there's a catastrophe for the Germans, why not try it? currently i am of confidence. But I can not tell how I am gonna do because it's depend on your reaction.Is that the way how one play strategy game against others? tell everything about what you gonna do in details to your foe? if this discuss gonna make everything out, then what's the point playing it? we can just make AAR by talking you said it's a strategy you never thought of. So do you think by just talking, you can get all the details about it? Come on man, this is a tough game. Just practice instead of imagination if you say you just have time talking but not playing it, i can totally understand. You can assign any one you trust, I am willing to face anyone. Thanks

BTW, what I always thought was the super-sleazy-gamey Yugoslavia strategy in Total War is the exact opposite. The WA attack Yugoslavia by air as early as possible (perhaps CAGs first turn, definitely before Rumania Border War).

The Allies can put extra French units in Yugoslavia in Summer and threaten Rumania, Hungary, and Bulgaria (and it probably won't be particularly hard to take out Rumania unless the Rumania border war fired) - and perhaps take them out. France may fall early, but the loss of Rumania and its infrastructure is an ouchy for the Axis.

EDIT: It occurred to me after I posted, that the Rumania border war probably won't fire under these circumstances, which is another minus. I must be a little scatter-brained today (I just got back from the gym) - it looks like to me the fall of Rumania is a sure thing (and Bulgaria too if the WA want to push it). Am I wrong?

ORIGINAL: Forwarn45 EDIT: It occurred to me after I posted, that the Rumania border war probably won't fire under these circumstances, which is another minus. I must be a little scatter-brained today (I just got back from the gym) - it looks like to me the fall of Rumania is a sure thing (and Bulgaria too if the WA want to push it). Am I wrong?

If Rumania becomes Pro-Axis with the attack on Yugo (a 90% chance that it will), then you are correct and the border war will not occur (this applies to both Total War and Global Glory).

The risk to the Allies depends on the German move. When Germany attacks Yugo, he opens up another flank. But presumably the German doesn't want to leave it open, and also moves a lot of units to Austria in order to ensure that Yugoslavia falls the next turn.

French fleets suicidally parked in the Adriatic would block reinforcement to Albania.

'twould be interesting. I admit I do wish someone would AAR it :).

The current test version of Global Glory does have some tweaks for this. Namely the Greek events mentioned above, which open up an Allied route in and out of the Balkans (which they should be able to keep open for at least as long as the French fleets remain).

In Total War, I think this is a catastrophe for the Germans. Rumania would be stuck as a Neutral if I am not mistaken (am I mistaken? how would you turn Rumania German?).

Rumania will join the Axis when the Germans take out the Allied Yugoslavia - so it's not so bad as far as that's concerned. That's why I suggested the Allies may want to take care of Rumania in a preemptive fashion.

Schury, I am curious as to what you think the primary advantage of the strategy is - is it to attack S France? Or is it the possible demise of France a turn early (given the need to defend two flanks)? Or is it bringing the Balkans online early?

I am not entirely sold on the benefit of losing Vichy or loosing the French fleet in the Med (a serious downside). However, knocking France out early and getting the balkans quickly is a definite plus. I am not sure how I would weigh possible damage to Rumania. On the one-hand, there is the loss of militia, air etc. On the other hand, there is the possibility that the attacking WA troops will also be lost and there is the damage to WA WR levels. Leaves me a bit equivocal, I guess.

(On the gamey side of things, I think that if you take Tunisia you will still keep the territory (and the strategic benefit it brings) when Vichy is declared, so that is a slight advantage of the strategy.)

If there are no other takers, I guess I would be game for a AAR. Although not of Forwarn's skill (as he has shown me three times), I consider myself to have improved a fair amount in the past couple months....

ORIGINAL: WanderingHead In Total War, I think this is a catastrophe for the Germans. Rumania would be stuck as a Neutral if I am not mistaken (am I mistaken? how would you turn Rumania German?).

Rumania will join the Axis when the Germans take out the Allied Yugoslavia - so it's not so bad as far as that's concerned. That's why I suggested the Allies may want to take care of Rumania in a preemptive fashion.

Ahh yes, how'd I miss that? ;)

In Total War, then, a good Allied approach is to refuse Yugoslavia's entry into the WA. It would freeze Rumania out: the adjacent region status check only applies when you *DOW* a neutral (not every time you attack), or *capture* an enemy region. By keeping it neutral (and already at war since the first turn), no status check would apply for Rumania.

This approach doesn't work so well for the Allies in Global Glory, however.

Taking italy earlier is a great improvement. It wholely changed the stereotype opening. I believe this bring me the super advantage. We can do alot. Like take the whole africa, Attack russia early. Attack turkey and secure the whole balkan. There're lots of posibilities that depends on foes' reactions, so that I can't list them all. That's why i think a great AAR will help. If a top player can't afford it, how could you deny the huge advantages it brought? I think the strategy is inconvincible. Talks can't conquer the Aaxis Is forwarn avaliable for an AAR? Try to tell yourself this, It's like playing a new game as usual, just with my brag and boast in advance. There's nothing you should worried or inquired now. I guess everybody would really apprecaite it. We need more great AARs to bring this forum back to thrive. Let's contribute

I appreciate it that you would try. But I would like to fight some one like forwarn if you don't mind. Some of my friends like xianing, zhao, had fought you decent battles. No offense, but I really need some one that is very powerful to feel the wrath of the AXIS, which would make the outcome more convincing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucky1

Schury, I am curious as to what you think the primary advantage of the strategy is - is it to attack S France? Or is it the possible demise of France a turn early (given the need to defend two flanks)? Or is it bringing the Balkans online early?

I am not entirely sold on the benefit of losing Vichy or loosing the French fleet in the Med (a serious downside). However, knocking France out early and getting the balkans quickly is a definite plus. I am not sure how I would weigh possible damage to Rumania. On the one-hand, there is the loss of militia, air etc. On the other hand, there is the possibility that the attacking WA troops will also be lost and there is the damage to WA WR levels. Leaves me a bit equivocal, I guess.

(On the gamey side of things, I think that if you take Tunisia you will still keep the territory (and the strategic benefit it brings) when Vichy is declared, so that is a slight advantage of the strategy.)

If there are no other takers, I guess I would be game for a AAR. Although not of Forwarn's skill (as he has shown me three times), I consider myself to have improved a fair amount in the past couple months....

Beggars can't be choosers..... My offer stands if you get no volunteers....

That only proves I am not a begger but a challenger. You lost to my prentice who played this game for just serval weeks. So it's fair I wanna find some one good. Do not take it as an offense. I just gonna make the oucome be more convincing as I mentioned. But if you wanna fight zhao, I can give him your address. I am sure he can give you a fairly good game experiance. Again, thanks for your interest.

No offence was taken (hence the happy face)! If Zhao is interested, I would gladly play. If I lost to him, I sure that was several months ago and I sure to give him a better run this time (I hope!). I am just glad to play. Hopefully, you get your AAR....